Dispatches from the 10th Crusade

What’s Wrong with the World
is dedicated to the defense of
what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of
the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the
Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Evangelical college associations capitulate in return for exemptions

The boards of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities and the National Association of Evangelicals have endorsedfederal laws explicitly enshrining sexual orientation and gender identity as specially protected classes, as long as such laws contain exemptions that they think will exempt their own explicitly Christian institutions.

And Esau sold his birthright for a meal. This is a disaster, manufactured by misguided (at best) and cowardly (at worst) Evangelical leaders who comprise the majority within the boards of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) and the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). (The NAE motion to approve the so-called "Fairness for All" document was unanimous, if you can believe it.) They now give evidence to the world that they weren't really serious about their convictions concerning the male-female foundation for marriage or the significance of biology for defining gender.

Their sell-out could be cited by legislators and jurists alike as evidence that even Evangelicals have no convictions regarding human sexuality. What's next? Anti-discrimination laws and marriage rights for polyamorists and people inclined to "close kin" love?

They shelter themselves within their own little walls while throwing all other Christians who work outside those walls under a bus. These leaders are actually calling on Congress to slit our collective throats by passing special protections for "gender identity" and "sexual orientation" that will, in the end, destroy free speech and the free exercise of religion.

The article says that the legislation the boards want to support would be modeled on Utah's law. As far as I can understand it, Utah's law exempts only explicitly Christian organizations and non-profits, not individuals. And Utah's law does not address public accommodations, which means it doesn't apply to bakers and florists in the first place. But would the federal law for which these "evangelicals" are calling address public accommodations? It's hard to believe that it wouldn't. If these categories were added to existing federal law, then public accommodations would certainly be included, since they are already included in federal non-discrimination law.

In any event, as Gagnon points out, we should not be throwing people under the bus on these issues who don't fall under some narrow set of exemption allowances. What about the non-religious photographer who prefers not to photograph a same-sex ceremony? What about the non-religious owner of a single rental house who prefers not to rent it to a gay "couple"? And so forth. Let's recall that these are natural law matters and that non-religious people have access to the truth of the natural law as well.

And once we get into "gender identity," things get even crazier. So we want federal legislation requiring all bathrooms and locker rooms to be open to those who "identify" as whatever sex and requiring those who offer public accommodations to refer to people by their preferred pronouns? Would that be a federal version of the current New York City legislation on that subject?

These actions by these evangelical boards are short-sighted and unprincipled.

Comments (16)

I have been optimistic that if another Masterpiece cake case winds it's way to the Supreme Court that we will get the explicit broad First Amendment ruling we did not get in the first case. However, if there is a "conservative evangelical" backed federal law enshrining protections for "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" that applies to public accommodations, then Im thinking all bets are off. It is not at all unimaginable this conservative leaning Supreme Court would rubber stamp it. Heck, we could probably can count on it, they may be even more concerned with court legitimacy and not appearing to be legislating from the bench than the original understanding of the Constitution.

That's a good point I hadn't thought of. It shouldn't matter from the perspective of constitutional interpretation, but Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Gorsuch may not think in logical con-law terms on these issues.

When the issue came up of the CCCU's allowing schools that no longer stand against homosexuality into membership, there were many, many discussions among the college presidents with the CCCU leadership. I am proud to say that our college considered membership benefits to be less important than truth and withdrew from the organization over it. This new stand is thus not surprising from CCCU, as it is clearly only concerned with the protection of its members and not with principles.

That's very interesting about CCCU, Beth. If they were admitting colleges that no longer take such a stand, then it is unsurprising that the perspective of the board itself would have changed. The board is going to reflect, over time, the positions of the member schools.

I think they decided such schools would have some kind of "second-class" membership ("associates" maybe?), but thankfully our administration and board saw that for what it is -- the first step down the slope.

'“The fact that these basic human rights for the LGBT community are already secured for nearly 60 percent of the country at either the state or local level suggests that the window for this exchange of protections at the national level is narrow,” wrote Houghton president Mullen. “There is an opportunity in this moment that is not likely to last.”'

Setting aside whether the ability to compel people to publicly accept one's lifestyle is a "basic human right", the argument seems to be that right now, 60 percent of the country is already on board with this, and that number is only going to go up. Right now, the reasoning goes, help from Evangelical organizations would be useful to "the LGBT community", and they might even be willing to consider an "exchange of protections", but at the rate the LGBT side is making converts and changing laws "that is not likely to last". The latter point may be true, but if the Evangelical colleges know it, then the gays surely also know it. So even if Houghton is right, the gays know they will ultimately get their way regardless and have no reason to reciprocate any concessions the evangelicals make.

Right now, the reasoning goes, help from Evangelical organizations would be useful to "the LGBT community", and they might even be willing to consider an "exchange of protections", but at the rate the LGBT side is making converts and changing laws "that is not likely to last". ...So even if Houghton is right, the gays know they will ultimately get their way regardless and have no reason to reciprocate any concessions the evangelicals make.

Mullen's a silly argument in just about every way you look at it. If Mullen sees that gays already have 60%, and that the percentage is only going higher, then the gays are not only assured of getting their objective, but of getting it soon, too, with or without evangelical help. In fact, at least a quarter (but probably much more) of the gays would RATHER get it over the dead bodies (metaphorically) of the evangelicals anyway, just to prove that they didn't need the help - not anymore. The time they might have wanted help was 30+ years ago. Now it's just sucking up to the leaders, and they will reward such unwelcome sucking up in traditional fashion: by throwing the evangelical brown-nosers under the bus at the first opportune moment.

Even if Mullen were to achieve some kind of quid-pro-quo, it most likely wouldn't last more than 3 years, 5 at the outside. This is a devil's bargain, alright: you lose your principles AND you lose your fight, you get run over in the process, and all you have to show for it is that the fence-sitters become convinced you never had a principle to begin with. He's leading with a lose-lose strategy: he will lose in the long term AND in the short term.

I don't know what the answer is for right now, but it isn't in the CCCU and NAE approach, that's only likely to actually accelerate their demise. We (the community that believes in sexual reality) ought to be trying all sorts of potentially viable solutions, to see what works. Some on offense, some on defense, and some mixed. The reality is that the arguments of the KGB-NKVD-LQXBMHJGWD crowd are crap, and shining a light on them in many different angles won't hurt. But arguments are only a small portion of the story, we need "human interest" stuff that also drives the point home: stories of gays raising kids that turn out horribly, stories of gays who are unhappy until they stop their self-destructive behavior and find a level of peace by being chaste. Etc. Stories (like the Miller case in VT) that are patently a matter of those in charge of the gay agenda torturing ordinary folk just for being ordinary - so much for "human rights". Conscience is a human right, too, you know.

But we needn't try the options that take counsel of defeat and submission. Saruman and Wormtongue need not apply.

What if LGBTQXYZ beliefs and related conduct were just understood to be essentially religious and protected accordingly? I don't mean as an explicit category, but just one religion among many that are not named in anti discrimination law.

I am sure this is a non-starter, but I haven't thought of a clear reason this solution would cause all the problems that sexual orientation and gender identity being added as new categories do.

The one case I can think of I suspect this solution would lead to a wrong outcome is the case of the funeral director who decided he wanted to masquerade as a woman at work. This troubles me. On the upside, it seems the trend is to delink religious belief and religious conduct, particularly among progressives. This approach could force them to reevaluate that.

PS I am assuming this is likely a bad idea but I don't yet understand exactly how if we assume current anti discrimination law is not going anywhere and we just have to make do.

What if LGBTQXYZ beliefs and related conduct were just understood to be essentially religious and protected accordingly? I don't mean as an explicit category, but just one religion among many that are not named in anti discrimination law.

Well first off, KGB-QVBLTXYZ "beliefs" are not in relation to a supreme being, first principle of being, or anything like that. Therefore it would have difficulty qualifying as a "religion" properly speaking. Even if one were to urge an expansion of religion (a la Anthony Kennedy's infamous line in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey) to the notion of "the meaning of life", i.e. a "philosophy of life", it is not clear that the KGB crowd could qualify, since there are within that crowd so many different philosophies of life. It is also doubtful that such a category has or ought to have the kind of protections that religion has - doing so would seem to elevate everything that falls under "conscience" to be protected as religion, and my suspicion is that this would have some interesting (not in a good way) results.

Secondly, I would strongly resist including the "related conduct" in the protected class of "religion": the conduct was, only 50 years ago, illegal (as well as immoral), and for good reason. I can understand (under some perspectives aligned with either plurality or individual weakness) the notion of decriminalizing it, much like I can understand decriminalizing use of pot. But to make it not illegal does not make it not harmful, and we should not pretend that the plight of some people in thrall to a deformity should be cause to elevate evil behavior to a religious status. It ain't so.

Nevertheless, it is probable that we aren't going to do away with anti-discrimination law in the near future, and we are going to have to find a way to limit the reach of such laws so that they don't bring gay acts and inclinations under them. As I see it, while in a technical sense treating the gay lifestyle as a religious perspective should leave open the freedom of others who don't share their religion, in fact it won't be taken so. In that context, religious protection would NOT be equal all around, gays would be more equal than all traditional religions, and their only competitors would be the wiccans, the animists, and the trans fighting for a piece of the pie. As far as I can see, the elite / stupidigentsia have already cleared that hurdle in sentiment, and are expecting (with some reason) to simply mop up the details with the final nails in the coffin in the next few years. However you want to NAME the rights, the concrete reality (if they manage it) will be that the gay lifestyle will be treated not merely as one among many, but one for which positive, explicit approval is mandated as a public act of quasi-worship. Or at least, they were expecting until the constitution of the Court changed.

"Well first off, KGB-QVBLTXYZ "beliefs" are not in relation to a supreme being, first principle of being, or anything like that. Therefore it would have difficulty qualifying as a "religion" properly speaking"

Im not sure this is true. They are certainly moral beliefs, and it seems to me that moral beliefs are necessarily in relation to a supreme being.

"It is also doubtful that such a category has or ought to have the kind of protections that religion has - doing so would seem to elevate everything that falls under "conscience" to be protected as religion, and my suspicion is that this would have some interesting (not in a good way) results."

Possibly, I am concerned of unintended consequences because I know there is a lot I dont know with respect to legal history and precedent. This may or may not be consistent with the long-standing understanding of religion in law. If it is, then Im guessing there is not reason to be significantly concerned about unintended consequences. If it is new and novel, then that is a very real concern.

"Nevertheless, it is probable that we aren't going to do away with anti-discrimination law in the near future, and we are going to have to find a way to limit the reach of such laws so that they don't bring gay acts and inclinations under them."

I agree we are not. I am not so sure, for example that it needs to be legal for say an accounting firm to fire a data entry clerk just because he is involved in a homosexual relationship. Please dont read that as saying that specific protections for gay inclinations and conduct are needed or even acceptable. No, I am saying that could just be seen as conduct unrelated to the job and categorized the same as say playing video games, watching NFL games or even hosting a Bible study. This sort of thing would require existing anti discrimination law to be essentially abolished and replaced. As such, and as is, I think you are correct because what we are moving towards is the reality where anti-discrimination law that explicitly protects gay conduct and inclinations means that homo-sexually involved data entry clerk can have his Bible study hosting co-worker 3 cubes fired for creating a hostile workplace.

"However you want to NAME the rights, the concrete reality (if they manage it) will be that the gay lifestyle will be treated not merely as one among many, but one for which positive, explicit approval is mandated as a public act of quasi-worship. Or at least, they were expecting until the constitution of the Court changed."

That current constitution of the Court may only remain so long as they allow it, within some limits. They do at least have to win some elections and be willing to gamble that court packing wont backfire on them. Any proposed FFA compromise, no matter the details, inevitably means that there will be limits placed on our freedoms to act and speak. There will be no such limits placed on any of their freedoms. Above all, at least some of what freedoms we will continue to have to speak and act will necessarily be ones they dont think we should have. The compromise is simply that we are still, for now, allowed to have them. FFA gives them exactly what you say here just not necessarily to the degree they want it (yet).

I am not so sure, for example that it needs to be legal for say an accounting firm to fire a data entry clerk just because he is involved in a homosexual relationship.

It's not that simple. Suppose that the data entry clerk repeatedly refers to his sexual inclinations, brings his "husband" to company parties, chats obviously to his fellow workers on break about the fact that he and his "husband" are looking forward to a getaway weekend, and the like. In a sane society, there should be companies where such overt references to perversion and flauntings of perversion would be completely contrary to the company culture. Christian and other religious-owned small businesses most obviously, but a really sane society would have non-religious businesses where such behavior would also be considered weird, distracting to fellow workers, and disruptive of morale.

Nobody should be able to sue his company for firing him for flaunting his sexual perversion.

And it hardly needs to be said that the bizarre self-presentation and behavior and the consequent practical difficulties caused by "transgenders" are even more disruptive.

I agree in a sane society that flaunting sexual perversion would not be simply tolerated, and that your examples rise to the level of flaunting. Yet, a man who speaks similarly about his wife is not flaunting. There just is no moral parity.

Speaking of...I happen to be employed by an overseas company a year or so ago we had a new employee from our overseas HQ assigned to our office. I noticed one day he was gone and was told he danced suggestively with another male employee at a company event and was mysteriously gone soon after. No one could confirm there was a connection, but it sure looked like there was. I believe both him and the other guy have wives and children. That said, if it is true his suggestive male-male dancing disgusted management enough to let him go...I cant see anything wrong with it. Other employees should not have to see that and nod along.

I agree in a sane society that flaunting sexual perversion would not be simply tolerated, and that your examples rise to the level of flaunting. Yet, a man who speaks similarly about his wife is not flaunting. There just is no moral parity.

Bingo. Which is why I never agree when someone says, "Can't we all agree that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong for, I dunno, a car salesman?"

Post a comment

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If
your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same
comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.

Reverse the order of the digits in 31, then type the answer using letters instead of numbers, all lower case. (required):